The mainstream media: when they're not sensationalizing anti-Democrat propaganda

... they're hiding Republican crimes.

Mr. Yost,

After reading your article I have to say I feel more confused than before as to what the issues are and where precedence lies. I am politically savvy, a PhD student in cognitive science, and scored high on my verbal SAT but I _still_ can't make heads or tails of your article.

For instance, your article implies that Cheney's lawyer managed to get the visitor logs designated as Presidential Records, subsequently removing them from public access ("Such a designation prevents the public from learning who visited the vice president.").

But the PRA ensures that said logs _are_ kept public -- that Cheney's logs be designated as presidential means they must not be destroyed, must be archived and can be released per FOIA requests. The above quote is either false or misleading.

The rest of the article is similarly obfuscatory. The crying shame, however, is that this kind of article needs to be even clearer than the rest, given that the US VP might be breaking the law, which is presumably of vital national and international interest.

Yours sincerely,

[me]

UC San Diego

Suicide Bombers

A response to Thursday's Washington Times editorial.

Your entire editorial hinges on the contention that suicide bombings 'normally target civilians'. That may be true, but the Pew poll asked if respondents sympathized with the use of suicide bombing in some circumstances.

I'm sure Christians can imagine some circumstances in which suicide bombing would be justified (for instance if it directly targeted a brutally repressive regime).

But if you're having trouble understanding a suicide bomber's point of view, perhaps you should consider how non-Muslim Americans would answer this question: Are the deaths of innocent civilians sometimes justified in order to defend the American way of life?

The altruistic food industry is at it again ...

New revisions, supported by Anheuser-Busch, to the list of allowed non-organic food additives that will not invalidate a food's status as 'USDA Organic'. I think it speaks for itself, though I've taken the liberty of bolding a few choice items:

Sec. 205.606 Nonorganically produced agricultural products allowed as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as ``organic.''



Only the following nonorganically produced agricultural products may be used as ingredients in or on processed products labeled as ``organic,'' only in accordance with any restrictions specified in this section, and only when the product is not commercially available in organic form.

(a) Casings, from processed intestines.

(b) Celery powder.

(c) Chia (Salvia hispanica).

(d) Colors derived from agricultural products.

• (1) Annatto extract (pigment CAS 1393-63-1)--water and oil soluble.
• (2) Beet juice (pigment CAS 7659-95-2).
• (3) Beta-carotene (CAS 1393-63-1) derived from carrots.
• (4) Black currant juice (pigment CAS 's: 528-58-5, 528-53-0, 643-84-5, 134-01-0, 1429-30-7, and 134-04-3).
• (5) Black/Purple carrot juice (pigment CAS 's: 528-58-5, 528-53-0, 643-84-5, 134-01-0, 1429-30-7, and 134-04-3).
• (6) Blueberry juice (pigment CAS 's: 528-58-5, 528-53-0, 643-84-5, 134-01-0, 1429-30-7, and 134-04-3).
• (7) Carrot juice (pigment CAS 1393-63-1).
• (8) Cherry juice (pigment CAS 's: 528-58-5, 528-53-0, 643-84-5, 134-01-0, 1429-30-7, and 134-04-3).
• (9) Chokeberry--Aronia juice (pigment CAS 's: 528-58-5, 528-53-0, 643-84-5, 134-01-0, 1429-30-7, and 134-04-3).
• (10) Elderberry juice (pigment CAS 's: 528-58-5, 528-53-0, 643-84-5, 134-01-0, 1429-30-7, and 134-04-3).
• (11) Grape juice (pigment CAS 's: 528-58-5, 528-53-0, 643-84-5, 134-01-0, 1429-30-7, and 134-04-3).
• (12) Grape skin extract (pigment CAS 's: 528-58-5, 528-53-0, 643-84-5, 134-01-0, 1429-30-7, and 134-04-3).
• (13) Paprika (CAS 68917-78-2)--dried, and oil extracted.
• (14) Pumpkin juice (pigment CAS 127-40-2).
• (15) Purple potato juice (pigment CAS 's: 528-58-5, 528-53-0, 643-84-5, 134-01-0, 1429-30-7, and 134-04-3).
• (16) Red cabbage extract (pigment CAS 's: 528-58-5, 528-53-0, 643-84-5, 134-01-0, 1429-30-7, and 134-04-3).
• (17) Red radish extract (pigment CAS 's: 528-58-5, 528-53-0, 643-84-5, 134-01-0, 1429-30-7, and 134-04-3).
• (18) Saffron (pigment CAS 1393-63-1).
• (19) Turmeric (CAS 458-37-7).

(e) Dillweed oil (CAS 8006-75-5).

(f) Fish oil (Fatty acid CAS 's: 10417-94-4, and 25167-62-8)--stabilized with organic ingredients or only with ingredients on the National List, Sec. Sec. 205.605 and 205.606.

(g) Fructooligosaccharides (CAS 308066-66-2).

(h) Galangal, frozen.

(i) Gelatin (CAS 9000-70-8).

(j) Gums--water extracted only (Arabic; Guar; Locust bean; and Carob bean).

(k) Hops. [er ... then the only thing really organic in the beer's is the water ... no?]

(l) Inulin--oligofructose enriched (CAS 9005-80-5).

(m) Kelp--for use only as a thickener and dietary supplement.

(n) Konjac flour (CAS 37220-17-0).

(o) Lecithin--unbleached.

(p) Lemongrass--frozen.

(q) Orange shellac--unbleached (CAS 9000-59-3).

(r) Pectin (high-methoxy).

(s) Peppers (Chipotle chile).

(t) Starches.

• (1) Cornstarch (native).
• (2) Rice starch, unmodified (CAS 977000-08-0)--for use in organic handling until [date two years after effective date of final rule].
• (3) Sweet potato starch--for bean thread production only.

(u) Turkish bay leaves.

(v) Wakame seaweed (Undaria pinnatifada).

(w) Whey protein concentrate.

Letter to CNN's Glen Beck

Subject: Global warming 'controversy'

Mr. Beck,

I am writing to ask that the people at your program stop and think about who are the interested parties in the global warming debate. And then consider the way science works and how intellectually conservative and skeptical scientists are as a group. Oil companies and other _very_ vested interests are trying, and have succeeded (it's easy when one acts in bad faith), at spreading uncertainty and doubt about climate science. While truth and acting in _good_ faith matters not a bit for oil executives [cbs: http://tinyurl.com/2ucb8t], those two things are scientists' bread and butter.

Unfortunately, your May 2 program would have the public believe the reverse is true: that scientists are out to win buckets of money and the sober source of information is industry funded lobby groups and 'scientists'. Even more ironically, after saying that an inconvenient truth is going 'unchallenged', you bring the industry funded 'climate skeptics' on to your show and let them give their opinion completely outside of a context of debate.

Given how costly climate change will be and how little it will cost the economy to fix it, such television programming is despicable.

(omitted)
PhD student

PS While it is true that one gets more funding for science that has a broader relevance, that is not the main determinant for who gets funding. Most scientists are eager to debunk outlandish claims by their colleagues. It is good science that resists scrutiny and good researchers with a track record of rigor and innovation that get funding. The way many journalists spin it, one would think that 'more funding' means a bigger salary -- almost all funding is R+D money for technology, travel, and research assistants.

PPS The claims of the people on your program could have and should have been fact-checked. If you really want to see a well-cited and debated piece of writing on the topic, the Wikipedia articles on climate change and global warming work well (or at least serve as good pointers). Some fact checking has been done for you ex post facto here: http://tinyurl.com/2emjq9